“The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction” discusses how the mass reproduction of traditional artworks can diminish the authenticity and unique presence of the original piece. Even though there are many ways in which reproducing a piece of art through photographic or technical reproduction has its own benefits, the quality of the artwork is always depreciated.
I felt that Passage 5 was the most compelling because of the way Benjamin described how art is perceived by people. He explains that early art was created to show its “cult value,” where people might have used it for any mystical or religious rituals. It was made to be valued as something spiritually significant, rather than something to be seen by the masses. However, as time has evolved, the mass production of art has made it possible for these artworks to be reached by a much larger audience, which harms the artwork’s importance. The need for art to be exhibited shifts the 2 polar types of how art is valued so much that it ends up transforming the quality.
I disagree with what he expresses here because the exhibition value of the work does not take away from how the artwork is originally meant to be perceived. Photography and printing can be mass produced, but having it be accessible to more people doesn’t automatically mean that people will not appreciate the artwork for what it is. For example, no amount of mass produced figures of religious heads will stop people from appreciating the actual person and praying. There are millions of merchandises with Van Gogh’s Starry Night, or Monet’s Water Lily paintings on it, and the mass production of these items will not make people suddenly believe that it’s not up to their standards just because it’s not an original or have a cult value.